JAGDISH SAHAI, J.

( 1 ) ON plots Nos. J13/62 and J13/63 situate in Chauka Ghat in the city of Varanasi stand certain constructions. This property was the subject of dispute between the petitioner Sheonath Prasad and the respondent No. 4 Sita Ram both of whom alleged themselves to be the representatives of the Lohar Community of Varanasi and claimed to be in possession of the property in dispute with the result that proceedings under Section 145, Criminal P. C. , were initiated in the court of the City Magistrate, Varanasi, on an application made by the respondent No. 4. The case was transferred to Sri R. L. Tiwari, Special Magistrate 1st Class, Varanasi, who after perusing the affidavits filed by the parties recorded a finding that he could not decide as to which of the two parties was in possession over the property in dispute at the date of the preliminary order or two months next preceding the date of the preliminary order, and referred the case to the learned Munsif of Varanasi for recording a finding as to any and which of the parties was in possession of the property in dispute at the date of the order as explained in Sub-section (4) of section 145, Criminal P. C. , by his order dated 9-4-1958, on 14-4-1958 an application was made by- the petitioner that the case be referred to the learned civil Judge, Varanasi, and not to the learned Munsif of Varanasi because the value of the plots and the constructions on them,. e. , the property in dispute, was over Rs. 5,000/- and the annual value of the property shown in the municipal records was Rs. 1,020/ -. The learned Magistrate recorded the order "filer" on this application. The learned Munsif recorded the evidence produced by the parties and after perusing the oral evidence as also the affidavit filed in the case recorded a finding that the respondent No. 4 was in possession over the property in dispute at the date of the preliminary order, as also within two months next preceding that date. Thereupon the present writ petition has been filed in this Court. The prayer in the petition is that the order of the learned Magistrate dated 9-4-1958 referring the case to the learned Munsif and that of the learned Munsif dated 23-12-1958 be quashed.

( 2 ) I have heard Mr. S. C. Khare the learned counsel for the petitioner. He has made two submissions before me. His first submission is that the findings recorded by the learned Munsif are not correct. The second submission of the learned counsel is that the learned Magistrate had no jurisdiction to refer the case to the learned Munsif who in his turn had no jurisdiction to record the necessary findings because the value of the property in dispute was more than Rs. 5,000/- and the case was beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of the learned Munsif.

( 3 ) I will first take the first submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is not open to a petitioner in a writ petition to challenge findings of fact recorded by a Court or a Tribunal unless it is shown that those findings of fact are not based on any evidence or that in arriving at those findings any of the principles of natural justice have been infringed. The petitioners complaint is not in either of these two directions. The contention made on behalf of the petitioner is that the evidence has not been correctly appraised and in any case the inferences drawn by the learned munsif from the evidence on the record are not correct. In my opinion on the basis of a ground like this no notice can be issued.

( 4 ) THE second submission of the learned counsel is a more substantial one. If a Magistrate is unable to determine as to which of the parties before him was in possession of the property in dispute at the date of the preliminary order or whether any party was forcibly and unlawfully dispossessed within two months next preceding the date of that order he has to submit the record to "a civil court of competent jurisdiction" which is required to decide that question. The words "civ